PEOPLE FOR A CORONIAL ENQUIRY INTO THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE
John Howard acted illegally when he ordered the Coronial Inquiry to be abandoned
PEOPLE FOR A CORONIAL INQUIRY:
Public Meeting, Wednesday 29th September 2004, 7.30 pm, Admission $5.00
You probably believe that Martin Bryant, acting alone, carried out the Port Arthur massacre on Sunday 28th April 1996. If so, can you reconcile the following facts with the official story?
1. On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast, for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?
2. Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had the policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?
3. Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?
4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock- marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.
5. Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.
6. Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana where they had a barbecue? Even the police who arrived by boats and were a stone's throw away from the main crime scene in the cafe, also failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this lack of protection meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?
7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30 while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?
8. Same Question - Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say "I have here Graham Collyer's police statement...", Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building. When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully - "There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe".
9. Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?
10. According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?
11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the 'siege' and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as 'coughs' but an electronic analysis of one of the 'coughs' shows that it was an SKK shot.
12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.
13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers on the spot, churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!
14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania", said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?
15. "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us", said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the "THEY" who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?
16. No Respect for the Law. Our law demands that a Coronial Inquiry must take place (a) when foreign nationals are killed and (b) when anyone dies in a fire.
At Port Arthur several foreigners were killed and three people died in the fire at Seascape.
John Howard acted illegally when he ordered the Coronial Inquiry to be abandoned.
The above information has been known to many people for quite some time. But, at the public meeting on Wednesday 29th September, Mr Andrew MacGregor will present New info that will ASTOUND you. To quote him exactly, "It will knock the socks off you". Be there with your friends for a historic meeting. The $5 admission is to pay for airfares, advertising, hall hire, etc. Andrew Macgregor was a policeman in Victoria for 17 years.
Launceston, 29 September 2004
For many years now Mrs Olga Scully has been spreading the Word of God, and anything else that she considers to be liberating the mind from government deception and lies. She is never alone in this quest, and so it came to pass that over one hundred concerned citizens attended at Launceston, Tasmania, a public meeting to hear retired Victorian policeman, Andrew MacGregor, canvas his new findings on the Port Arthur Massacre.
The impetus to MacGregor's new research comes from his viewing of an official police training video - for police eyes only - about the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre. Fate's hand, or Divine intervention, made it possible for this video to enter the public domain. How? Mrs Olga Scully, Launceston, is well known for her activist work, especially in copying and distributing videos. She buys used videos for about $1,- each, fills them with Revisionist material, then distributes them - usually free of charge. From where does she obtain her videos? Mrs Scully visits the various city rubbish dumps that have since been privatised. There are countless videos available for purchase at the dump shop. On a particular day she bought at the Hobart rubbish tip a cart-load (literally hundreds) of used video tapes. Once home, she cleans them of dust, and she also briefly glances at the titles. Mrs Scully noticed that she had a Tasmania Police Training tape in her hands. It was from the Tasmanian Police training unit that, using original scenes shot on the day of the Port Arthur massacre, 28 April 1996, a video was produced that offered the official version of vents.
She sent her copy to a known gun-lobbyist, and from there it hit the headlines that a police training video had reached the public domain. The Tasmania Police attempted to reign in any damage this tape's information could have on the official Port Arthur Terrorist theory, as expounded by official government sources - and also by the leading news media. There is also now the rumour circulating that some Tasmania police members are actually selling the video to those who wish to acquire a copy.
Public Police directives were issued that claimed the possession and viewing of the video was a criminal matter, and so, surprise, surprise, Mrs Scully received visits from the media and from the police. Unfortunately for her enemies, Mrs Scully is fearless and thus the video had left her hand and had already reached the 'in the public domain' legal status.
The Public Meeting on 29 September 2004 Max Fry Hall, Trevallyn, Launceston
Andrew MacGregor addresses the 'People for a Coronial Enquiry' public meeting Launceston, Tasmania,
29 September 2004. Before the meeting one of the Port Arthur Convict Settlement Ghosts appears in the
guise of the Devil, something MacGregor takes with a grain of salt. He has no fear of FEAR
Over 100 people attended the three-hour meeting that began with a prayer and ended with a lively question and answer session, and with a Motion that was unanimously passed: "I move that this assembly of Australian Citizens from Tasmania and other Australian States, in light of the evidence presented here tonight and on other occasions, demand that the Parliament of Tasmania obey the Law and cause a Coronial Enquiry to be held into The Murders at Port Arthur on Sunday April 28 1996.
Further, that this motion be presented to The Speaker of the Tasmanian Parliament along with an outline of evidence for reasons why we do not accept the official story of the murders. That this material be copied to Members of all Australian Parliaments, the Media and to Australian Citizens by whatever means possible."
Fredrick Töben comments:
The fact that Andrew MacGregor names names convinced me to publicize this meeting. He does not mince words and clearly states that the Port Arthur Massacre was an exercise gone wrong, that the Tasmanian Police acted out anti-terrorist protocols that originally aimed to kill two busloads of American tourists who were to have made a journey on a Port Arthur ferry.
MacGregor does not see it as a coincidence that on the day of Martin Bryant's court appearance, US President Bill Clinton addressed Australia's parliamentarians at Parliament House in Canberra.Mrs Olga Scully's Police video clearly fills in more of the missing bits of the Port Arthur Massacre cover-up. The pattern of this cover-up follows that of the 9/11 scam, the Oklahoma scam, the WACO scam, and numerous other shooting-spree incidents.
The USA reference is important here. In the background to these tragedies there is always the anti-gun lobby lurking to enact legislation that will take away an individual's right to bear arms - the Second Amendment; just as the 'Hate Speech' legislation is designed to eliminate the First Amendment.
One matter I had been canvassing for some time was that Martin Bryant was an heir to the Tattersal fortune because this explained how Bryant had a reasonably financially secure life-style. After his arrest and imprisonment the State stripped him of his assets and income. There is always someone who profits from such a tragedy - rarely the relatives of the innocent victims.
There was also another story that cropped up years ago where another heir to the Tattersal fortune, a priest, had met an untimely death in a plane crash.
The 9/11 tragedy also had the twin effects of introducing new restrictive legislation - Patriots Act, and of making money for some, such as Larry Silverstein and the terrorist-insured twin towers!
MacGregor says this Tattersal linkage is a misleading story made up to deceive and to bring hatred on to Bryant. It made Bryant to be the selfish-useless rich young man instead of a man with an IQ of 66. It also deflected from the fact that Bryant had inherited his father's superannuation, after his father 'accidentally' drowned himself in a dam, something that was never quite fully explained.
A couple of individuals handed out the following notice , which is reproduced here without comment. The email address has been inserted by Adelaide Institute.
TO THOSE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH
You must come forward NOW and publicly declare all you know about the Port Arthur Massacre. If you don't, you will be severely dealt with when the truth comes out and make no mistake, it will.
Tell the Tasmanian people why -
1. No coronial enquiry was held and who authorised the illegal omission.
2. Why the Police waited 6 hours to go in and do their duty to protect the people at Port Arthur.
3. Why Police ignored eye witnesses statements that it was not Martin Bryant.
4. Why there was no DNA or forensic evidence linking Martin bryant to the massacre.
5. Why Police burnt the stuck car at 'Seascape' to destroy evidence.
6. Why Police tortured Martin Bryant for 159 days to force a 'confession'.
7. Why Martin Bryant's defence lawyer said his job was to get a conviction.
and all other concealed facts that you know.
Claiming you were just followed orders will not save you - remember the Nuremberg trials?
Send your statement to -
1. Email address
2. The Ombudsman
3. To as many media outlets as possible..
Superintendent Bob Fielding, OC, PFCP, Taranna, 29 April 1996: "At the end of the day, I'm satisfied that we made the right decision in fact, waiting and forcing him to come to us as opposed to vice versa."
Andrew MacGregor addressed concerned Tasmanian citizens in Launceston
on 29 September 2004
The Port Arthur Massacre was a planned event from start to finish
By Andrew MacGregor
“At the end of the day, I’m satisfied that we made the right decision in fact waiting and forcing him to come to us as opposed to vice versa.” Superintendent Bob Fielding, O.C. PFCP, Taranna, 29th April 1996. (1)
Now just what exactly has Superintendent Bob Fielding told us here? He has just told us that the Tasmania Police SOG’s forced the gunman to come to them, but how did the police do that as the only thing that forced Martin Bryant out of Seascape Cottage was the fact that the building was on fire. This being the case, then the only observation that can be made was that Bob Fielding has just admitted that Seascape Cottage was set on fire by the SOG’s.
Think about this for a moment. Setting fire to a building to drive a terrorist out into the open with no consideration of the hostages whatsoever, last occurred in Australia on the 29th June 1880 in Victoria and was on the orders of the Police Chief Commissioner, Captain Standish, who ordered the inn at Glenrowan to be torched in an attempt to apprehend members of the Kelly gang. Also killed in this fire was a 16 year old youth, and in the subsequent Royal Commission, Commissioner Standish got the sack. Superintendent Fielding’s statement corroborates what we had already been told by witnesses that the police had openly stated that Seascape was set on fire by the SOG’s to force the gunman out. It also explains the time difficulties in that white smoke was first reported coming out of Seascape at 0747 hours and yet it was 37 minutes later, at 0824 hours, that Martin Bryant was reported to have left Seascape. (2)
Now that is a very long time for an old Pine board building to burn, especially one that had most of the upper windows smashed, which allowed the fire to feed on fresh air, but we have one major consideration; the hostages.
Superintendent Bob Fielding goes to great length to inform us of the problems involved in rescuing the hostages, and the discourse of whether the hostages were alive or dead. In such cases there is no choice but to consider the hostages alive, until such time as it can be confirmed that they were dead, so consider this; Once Martin Bryant was seen to emerge from the burning Seascape cottage, with his clothes alight, the SOG’s went immediately into action with one of their much rehearsed drills, and arrested Martin Bryant at 0835 hours, (2) 11 minutes after he was seen to emerge from the burning building. By this stage, Seascape Cottage had been reportedly burning for 48 minutes, and there was no longer any chance to rescue the hostages. In fact in the film taken of this event, you can see the roof of Seascape collapsing. (3) 11 minutes in a major life threatening event, but even then the local fire brigade which had been called out at 0600 hours, and was on standby at the Fox and Hounds Hotel was still not permitted on the scene, until Martin Bryant had been physically restrained and the area secured. In this event, the hostages were superfluous. At Glenrowan, at least the police were able to drag the body of Joe Byrne from the burning building.
In any police action where hostages are involved, the safety and welfare of the hostages are paramount. One of the primary tasks of the police in a hostage situation is to rescue the hostages and remove them from danger. If there was not a viable situation for the hostages to be removed with safety, then it would be the police task to create such an opportunity, and Fielding tells us that the police did have plans, which he signed off on prior to 0700 hours,(4) but still there was no move to rescue the hostages. This tells me the Port Arthur Massacre was an exercise.
In an article printed in the Australian Police Journal, in the September 1998 issue, but dated December 1998, on page 213, we have this statement from Sergeant Gerard Dutton: “It wasn’t until the following day, after Bryant was captured, that police realised the elderly couple that owned Seascape and the man taken captive and placed in the boot of the BMW were missing.”(5) In other words, the hostages didn’t rate. Again, the only time that the hostages don’t count in is an exercise.
POINT: No action to rescue hostages. It was per the Anti-terrorist plan
Now consider this quote from Geoff Easton on page 121 of the EMA papers; “A young man called at the Public Enquiries counter and asked for me. He was to tell me that he was a relative of the Martins, the owners of Seascape and that he had a cache of weapons stored there, and, in his words, “Shitloads of ammo mate!” I immediately took him to be interviewed by detectives.” (10)
Glen Martin’s response was as per the Herald Sun article: “Mr Martin said there was no truth in reports that guns used in the massacre may have belonged to him or were stored in the Seascape Cottage owned by his parents.” (22) This article continues with, “Mr Martin said he was appalled by reports that he had an arsenal of 43 guns stored on his parent’s pretty cottage on Fortescue Bay.”
In fact Glen Martin totally denies this report, but note; this is the only time we are given any indication of the number of firearms burnt at Seascape. 43 firearms, all supposedly collected by Martin Bryant over a period of time, and then placed in his Volvo without anybody noticing the unusual.
POINT: where did the 43 firearms at Seascape come from?
Now on the Monday morning on the ‘Today’ show we have Professor Simon Chapman from Gun Control interviewed where amongst other claims are; “We are told the gunman has 2500 rounds of ammunition” (21)
“The man has a history of mental illness”
So where did the media get the figure of 2500 rounds of ammunition that was quoted on the Monday morning? The only persons who would have known the quantity of ammunition at Seascape would be those who put the ammunition there. It was interesting to note in the Court Transcript that when the police initially searched the yellow Volvo at Port Arthur’s tollbooth, they didn’t photograph a box of ammunition that was supposedly left on the rear seat, but this box of ammunition (439 .308’s) was photographed at Police headquarters, (23) and another 1737 rounds found in the passageway and a spare room during the second search of Bryant’s Clare Street residence. Didn’t even trip over them during the first search.(24) Now that’s over 5000 rounds of ammunition involved in the massacre, and Tasmania Police never found where Bryant had supposedly purchased all this ammo.
The son of David and Sally Martin, Glen Martin has denied emphatically the claims made by Geoff Eaton, saying there was only a .22 rifle and two antique shotguns with their firing pins filed off. The witness Donald Cameron Gunn states that he only saw a .22 in one of Seascapes outbuilding when taken on a tour by David Martin just prior to the massacre. This means that the firearms at Seascape had to have been brought in by the gunman, but Martin Bryant was only interviewed in regard to three firearms, and the rifles located at Seascape and later on in Bryant’s home were totally ignored by police.
Now here’s a point of interest. We know that Martin Bryant hadn’t seen the Martins for years, and so, if Bryant had all this ammunition found both in his car and at his residence, why did he leave this ammunition in his car and at home? Did he trust in providence? Was he aware of all this ammunition that was supposedly lying about in the Tasman Peninsula’s Premier Bed and Breakfast residence? How would Martin Bryant be aware of the “Shitloads of ammo mate” that Easton states Glen Martin told him of, but what Glen Martin has emphatically denied? Why is Geoff Easton trying to compete with the Brothers Grimm, those delightful authors of fairy tales?
POINT: Just where did these firearms and ammunition come from. The police make no mention of them!
On the morning of the 29th April, Deputy Commissioner Richard McCreadie held a media conference with the attending media, many of whom were in Hobart to attend the media conference for the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers Association organised to start on the 29th April 1996. McCreadie informed the media that,
“a person has been taken into police custody, conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital suffering from burns, no gunshot wounds. He will we expect appear before the court later today or tomorrow so we obviously can’t comment on motive or anything else like that, but I’m happy to make Mr Fielding, who was the Forward Commander in Charge of the operation down here available to answer your questions about how the situation unfolded, and then we’ll talk about how we’ll facilitate the opportunity as media to get a look at the house, which has been destroyed by fire, burnt to the ground, and then to progress on to some of the other sites that will obviously be of interest to you.”(6)
One interesting aspect of this film footage is that it was shot at Taranna which begs the question; what was McCreadie doing at Taranna at approximately 9.30 am?
Now Superintendent Jack Johnston gives us some of the reasons why and how the media were to be given a tour of the crime scenes before they had even been properly examined by the police forensic squads.
“It became necessary during the course of the morning to identify the fact that the media were expressing such considerable interest in attending the scenes that we should facilitate that, so it became imperative that as soon as the crime scenes were cleared from a scientific perspective and an evidentiary perspective that we allowed them access and we did that by making two coaches available to transport them through the scenes in a very ordered way. They were given access to each of the sites at which the various murders occurred, and under very strict guidelines were entitled to film the sites where the bodies had been located.”(7)
Now were not the media fortunate?
But Commissioner McCreadie, has left his station in Hobart after doing an interview with Steve Lieberman of the ‘Today’ show, and travelled to Taranna where he has had his media conference, and informed the media of their reward, a guided tour of the Port Arthur massacre. Then we have Superintendent Jack Johnston informing us that it was a necessity to placate the media. If that was the case then, when would such an exercise in media control be expected to take place. The answer is at the end of the event, when the last of the bodies had been located, and the fate of the hostages properly established. So now then let us study what the Coroner, Mr Ian Matterson has to say in his report to the EMA.
“Prior to 0800 I received a telephone call indicating there was a desire by a government Minister to allow a bus load of press personnel on site around 0900. I indicated this was neither possible nor desirable because of the stage of investigations and that they ought not to be allowed on site until the bodies had been removed. I indicated that at this stage that could be several hours into the future. I advised that at the time of this telephone call potential exhibits were still being located, identified and marked for photographing and that I had no desire for the press to be present whilst bodies were still in situ and while investigators were attending to their duties with the further distinct possibility of exhibits being trampled upon, moved or even destroyed (albeit accidentally) by having extra personnel in the form of press on the site.
A little later in the morning I was in discussion with senior police officers whereby it was agreed that, provided we could complete our investigation of the bodies on the toll-gate road, once they were removed the press could be brought on site in buses, corralled in the Port Arthur Motor Inn where they would be briefed before being allowed to walk along a set route across to the historic church and up the road to the tollgate. It was agreed this would not occur before 1300 and no press member was to stray from the designated route nor would they be taken within 300 metres of the Broad Arrow Café. This was a perfectly acceptable compromise that enabled the forensic team sufficient time to properly complete their investigations of bodies in the open.”(8)
So, according to the Coroner, Mr Ian Matterson the request came from a government minister prior to 0800 hours, which was before Martin Bryant emerged from Seascape Cottage, and well before his arrest. Mr Matterson then tells us that he spoke a little later to senior police officers in regard to this matter, and the plans to bus in the media were finalised.
What this informs us of was at the time of these plans in regard to the media being bussed in and escorted through the Port Arthur Historic Site was that the Coroner, Mr Matterson was still considered as being in charge of the investigations, and this scenario would have continued had Martin Bryant died in the fire at Seascape. However Mr Matterson then informs us that at 0840 hours, he was informed that Martin Bryant had been arrested and therefore, as Coroner, he had ceased to have control over the investigation. In other words, the plan to bus in the media had been completed prior to 0840 hours, and before the arrest of Martin Bryant.
The questions now must be put as to how could such activities be planned whilst uncertain as to the outcome of the siege at Seascape, as police resources would have been stretched to the very limits, and the safety of the hostages, the public and the media could not be guaranteed until the event at Seascape was finalised, unless someone knew what was to happen, and that could only be if the Port Arthur Massacre was an exercise
In this handling of the media by the Tasmania Police and the Tasmanian Government, remember the Coroner has informed us that the plan was first mooted with him for a government Minister, was unique, and it is worthy to consider just where this plan may have been created. Perhaps the Tasmania Police Media Liaison Officer, the former Canberra based Communications officer, Geoff Easton learnt this containment strategy when, as he put it, “Just the fortnight before I had spent five days in Western Australia on the anti-terrorist SAC PAV Exercise, ‘Top Shelf’.”(9)
But let us consider another little piece of information given by Mr Easton: “at 0830 I was able to fly by helicopter to the PFCP with the Deputy Commissioner as news came through to us that a man had emerged from the flames of the Seascape Cottages.
I conferred with Peter Hazelwood who had spent a chilly night at the PFCP assisting the Forward Commander to facilitate as much media inquiry to around 80 journalists as he could, with regular briefings throughout the night. We decided that journalists in Hobart would be placed on a chartered coach from there and brought to Port Arthur to join those at the PFCP, to use a chartered coach that had already arrived for other purposes.(10)
Now the Coroner has already told us that he received a telephone call on behalf of a government Minister prior to 0800 hours in regard to permitting a bus load of journalists to tour the Port Arthur Historic Site around 0900 hours. Who was this Minister? It could only be the Minister Responsible for Port Arthur, Mr Ray Groom MHR. That a government Minister would interfere with an ongoing situation is preposterous. Just how could a government Minister interfere with a coronial or police investigation that may in some manner jeopardise the final outcome, unless of course the government Minister was aware of what the final outcome was to be? Does this smack of an exercise in terrorism?
The police media liaison officer is now telling us that a coach was waiting at the Police Forward Command Post at Taranna when he arrived there at approximately 0845 hours. So, what time was the bus which has had to travel from Hobart, which takes 90 minutes to make this journey, booked for it to be at Taranna prior to 0900 hours? For what purpose was the bus required at Taranna, especially when the bus was no longer used for that purpose. This corroborates the Coroner, Mr Matterson’s statements of the 0900hours appointment for the busload of media at Port Arthur.
Mr Geoff Easton continues with these snippets;
The Deputy Commissioner gave a briefing to those assembled telling them of the arrangements to allow them onto the site.
The Crime Scene Examiner, Supt Jack Johnston gave permission, once the outside bodies had been removed, to walk the journalists through each of the murder scenes.
At about midday he took charge of this phase and a small army of 120 media personnel followed him through as he described as far as practicable what had been found and our understanding of the events.”
“Seascape Cottage was in ashes and the last rounds of ammunition had been discharged from the intense heat and the area was now considered safe.”
POINT: Certain members of the police and some politicians knew in advance what was going to occur on the day. They knew!
Rightio, now let us do a time line of these events to put things into some perspective.
Prior to 0800 hours: Matterson and government Minister on buses
0747 hours: Seascape Cottage reported on fire
0752 hours: McCreadie interviewed by Steve Lieberman
Approx 0810 hours: McCreadie and Easton on route to airport
0824 hours: Martin Bryant emerges from burning Seascape Cottage
0830 hours: McCreadie and Easton board helicopter to Taranna
0830 hours approx: Matterson talk with senior police (McCreadie or Johnston)?
0835 hours: Bryant arrested
0840 hours: Matterson informed of arrest of Bryant
0930 hours approx: McCreadie informs media at Taranna of bus trip.
1105 hours: Walter Mikac views wife and daughters at site
1120 hours: Walter Mikac escorted by Dr Ireland from site
1230 hours: Media buses arrive at Seascape cottage (John Hamilton)
1300 hours: Media at Port Arthur
Now the reason that I’ve mentioned the Mikac episode is to demonstrate that these bodies were still in situ at 11.20 am, but it does appear that these bodies were moved just prior to the media’s arrival at 1300 hours.
Now the most telling parts here are the buses put on for the media prior to any facts that would indicate that the siege at seascape would be resolved. Deputy Police Commissioner McCreadie was the Police spokesman at Police Headquarters in Hobart up to his interview with Steve Lieberman on the Monday morning. By all precedents, McCreadie should have continued performing his duties at Hobart, but after the fire was ignited at Seascape Cottage, McCreadie is travelling to Taranna, with his Media Liaison Officer.
It is McCreadie who informs the 80 odd media personnel at Taranna of the prepared bus journey to allow the media to have full access to all the various crime scenes at Port Arthur, including the burned ruins of Seascape Cottage, and where the media were able to photograph one of the presumed murder weapons, the FN FAL in the gutter of the garage at Seascape.
Again we are told that a total of 120 media personnel were led through Port Arthur by Superintendent Jack Johnston, which means that there were approximately 40 media personnel from Hobart who took advantage of the Tasmania Police offer for the escorted tour of the Port Arthur Historic Site and other crime scenes.
From all of this we can conclude that the media had top priority in bringing forth the message of the Port Arthur Massacre. Then we are informed that the majority of media personnel were gathered in Hobart prior to the event for a seven day media conference. Why even John Raedler of CNN, based in Sydney was there along with his camera man, Hugh Williams who was based in Berlin.
POINT: The media were used to deliver the required message to the populace.
Gary Alexander, the Nubeena Ambulance driver’s response as per the book ‘Suddenly one Sunday’ on page 90 was; Alexander’s first thought was that he had arrived at an exercise, because the bodies looked like mannequins laid out. “If it’s a training set-up and they haven’t told someone, gee I’ll go crook.”(11)
Now why would Gary Alexander think that? Joe Paul the Executive Officer, Tasmania State Disaster Committee, tells us why in his report in the EMA:
“Several exercises have been conducted since 1995 that have been designed to assess the emergency services response capability to an event on the Tasman Peninsula, which includes Port Arthur”. (12)
“On 22 and 23 April 1996, five days prior to the tragedy, an Aviation Seminar was held at the Police Academy. The seminar considered Tasmania’s resource capability to cope with a domestic aircraft accident and identified the support available from other states.” “Other exercises were held to test anti terrorist arrangements. These exercises practised emergency service personnel and other organisations in responding and managing an event with multiple deaths and casualties. Due to the small population and lack of Defence Force infrastructure, there are limited resources within the State to cope with a major emergency.” N.B. Since when do Defence Forces participate in land-based emergencies?
“On 28 April 1996, Tasmania was as well-prepared as possible to deal with expected emergency events.”
Then there was Code Brown, the Royal Hobart Hospital new Emergency plan that was implemented in early 1995, but finalised on the Friday just before Port Arthur, along with their 25 Trauma Specialist doctors from all over Australia.
So there were exercises aplenty to bring the local services up to scratch, there were seminars and conferences to bring in the media and the required specialist doctors, and there was even a seminar to remove the management of the Port Arthur Site out of harm’s way, and of course none of this was orchestrated in any way, or was it?
Now in any emergency exercise there is the need for victims, so why not two bus loads of American tourists? But the Yanks weren’t shot at were they? That’s true, but again consider the words of the gunman when he told Gaye Lynd, “I’m going to the Isle of the Dead to kill some wasps.” (13)
Or Rob Atkins, the Sydney based spook to told us all that the gunman said, “He said there’s a lot of wasps around today, there’s not many Japs here are there, and then started muttering to himself, and then walked inside and that’s when all the gunshots started going off.” (14)
But most of all Assistant Commissioner Lupo Prins who is quoted in the Hobart Mercury newspaper on the 31st December 1996:
“At one stage we thought he was trying to get on a boat which a lot of people were on, to go to the Isle of the Dead. Had he got on the vessel he could have shot everybody on board so the potential was there for it to be a lot worse than it was.”
Think about this for a moment. Loopy Lupo has just told us the plan of attack for the day. (15)
This is corroborated by McCreadie in his EMA speech where he tells us, “1411 Marine Division tasked (Van Dieman & Vigilant tasked) (16)
And again we have that same information on the Police Video, (17) but the question that must arise is ‘What happened to these two units?’ They never reached Port Arthur, and surely they would have been able to supply a police presence at least. Now that did not happen, but consider if the Port Arthur Ferry, the Bundeena had been hi-jacked, the passengers slain, and the ferry set alight, then the two Tasmania Police patrol boats would have been called in to assist.To corroborate the thesis that the ferry was the original target, let us have a closer look at some of those shot within the Broad Arrow Café.
1. Anthony Nightingale; a loans officer with the Commonwealth Bank at Noble Park, who jumped up when the gunman started shooting and yelled out, “No, no, not here!” The information I have received is that he was ASIO.
2. Andrew Bruce Mills; a homosexual, and another reputed member of ASIO. He was accompanied by Tony and Sarah Kistan of Sydney.
3. Tony Kistan; a high ranking South African political activist of the ANC, Nelson Mandela’s Communist Party.
4. Dennis Olson; Olson was quoted in an article printed in the American newspaper, ‘The Nando times’ on the 30th April 96 that, “upon his return, he probably will get up on a "soapbox" and talk in even more passionate terms about his long-held belief in gun control.” Any relation to Roland Browne?
Now consider this article from the Hobart mercury, and study closely just what it tells you. A nurse, her name suppressed, has just received a six figure settlement from her employers, the Commonwealth Bank and Audiometrics of 814 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn. The only Commonwealth Bank employee that was killed at Port Arthur was Anthony Nightingale, and since the Commonwealth Bank do not pay their employees or are responsible for their employees outside of working hours, or whilst taking a touring holiday of Tasmania and visiting the Port Arthur Historic Site then we can only presume that Anthony Nightingale was on active duty when he died. If you are wondering as to why the nurse’s name was suppressed, kindly remember that it is still an offence to name a member of ASIO. (18) Alright, in this article we are told that the nurse had to walk into a room full of dead people who had been shot with a high-powered weapon. That means the nurse walked into the Broad Arrow Café, and she could have only done that on the day of the massacre, and therefore this nurse was Lyn Beavis, who according to her statement was on a 10 day holiday with her sister.
Again, why would the Commonwealth Bank pay for injuries to their staff that occurred whilst they were on holidays?
What were three ASIO personnel, a communist activist and an American Anti-gunner all doing at Port Arthur on this particular day?
But I have digressed from my subject, the Tasmania Police. The aim of the Tasmania Police is stated to be: To maintain law and order, protect life and property, enhance community safety, and reduce the incidence of fear of crime.
For six hours at Port Arthur, the whole community waited in trepidation whilst the Tasmania Police acted out their anti-terrorist protocols.
Superintendent Fielding: “We put together our formulated plans for the resolution of the incident and I signed off on most of those by around 7.00am.” (19)
In other words there was appears to have been a schedule with a limited time factor, but what plans are Fielding talking about? The local fire brigade being put on stand-by? The only incident that occurred was that Seascape was set on fire, and Fielding has already admitted that this was a police action.
Superintendent Fielding: “I had further discussions with the SOG liaison officer, the psychiatrist Dr Sale and the head of the negotiation unit, Inspector Tom Tully. I went through with them what they thought was the situation as far as the hostage being alive was concerned.”
The hostages must be considered alive until such time as they were proven to be dead. It doesn’t matter what the exercise observers state. (19)
Superintendent Fielding: “But they really thought that they (the hostages) were most likely deceased at that stage.” In other words, the hostages were immaterial to their plan of operations. Again this tells us that this was all an anti-terrorist exercise. (19)
Superintendent Fielding: “We didn’t know where Pearce was.” This being the case, we are now told that the person inside Seascape with ‘Jamie’ or Martin Bryant was not Glen Pears, so who was ‘Jamie’s’ companion Rick? (19)
Superintendent Fielding: “The fire then started and there was a lot of discussion as to what we should or should not do.” And so they fiddled while Rome burned (19)
Superintendent Fielding: “There was some discussion about whether we would have to send somebody in because we might be letting people burn alive in there.” Again the hostages were immaterial. But consider just exactly what Fielding is telling us, “because we might be letting people burn alive” and that is what the police were willing to do. Not protecting the community, but rather taking out a terrorist. It was an anti-terrorist exercise. (19)
Superintendent Fielding: “At the end of the day I weighed it up on the basis that it was better to let that occur, than to needlessly risk another nine or ten people’s lives to go in and that was what we did.” (19) In fact it was what the police did not do, attempt to save a victim, the main duty of any policeman. Also consider that the SOG’s have been training since 1979 to battle terrorists and save hostages, and yet they considered that they would have a 30% casualty rate against Martin Bryant, who was known to be an untrained shooter with a mental illness (Professor Simon Chapman).(21) Heaven help them should they come across the real thing. At Glenrowan the police at least managed to drag the body of Joe Byrne out of the burning building.
Superintendent Fielding: “Certainly from his actions, Bryant wanted us to go in while the house was burning.” If you consider Acting Sergeant Craig Harwood’s statement where Bryant after initially emerging from Seascape then returned into the burning building, then there is the real possibility that at least Martin Bryant was concerned about the safety of others. Or Constable Malcolm Scott’s statement that Martin Bryant asked if his girlfriend had got out, (41) then it would be perfectly reasonable for Bryant wanting the police to enter the burning house and save the occupants. But as Fielding states, oh no, we can’t do that.
Superintendent Fielding: “Right up to within ten minutes of being arrested, he was well ablaze and yelling out. He was trying to goad people to come in --- he was yelling out things like come on, come and get me!” Of course it is not natural for a young man to want to save his girlfriend, and when his clothes are burning to yell out for someone to come to him and to help him. (19)
Superintendent Fielding: “He came outside and his clothes were on fire or someone came outside with clothes on fire, they (the SOG’s) could not see because of the smoke exactly who it was, I would not allow them to go forward because I could not be certain from what they were telling me that it was Bryant.” Every house fire I have witnessed, the smoke rose into the sky. Only in Tasmania does the smoke drift downwards. But, again Fielding is telling us that the burning person may have been a hostage, and still the police would not attempt to save the possible victim. I guess that just was not part of any plan. (19)
Superintendent Fielding tells of the various formulated plans that he had signed off on prior to 0700 hours, and it is obvious that these plans had not been a spur of the moment type, but rather some well rehearsed battle plans such as the use of ballistic shields to protect the SOG’s from what Fielding termed “Bryant’s mutton gun”.
POINT: The Port Arthur Massacre was a planned event from start to finish.
The actions of the various players such as McCreadie, Groom, Easton, Sale and many others tells us that the Port Arthur Massacre was a terrorist exercise from the start. Every major police member involved with the Port Arthur Massacre had been trained by SAC-PAV, a Federal Government body from the Federal Attorney General’s Department and controlled by the PCSS.
Consider these snippets of information:
“A revised edition of the National Anti-Terrorist Plan endorsed by SAC-PAV in November 1995”
“For example, the effectiveness of the national Anti-Terrorist Plan and particularly the external support provisions was demonstrated during the Port Arthur incident in April 1996.”
“the response arrangements of the National Anti-Terrorist Plan were largely followed by the Tasmanian Authorities in successfully managing the incident.”
So, the plans that Superintendent Bob Fielding signed off on were in fact, part of the National Anti-Terrorist Plan endorsed by SAC-PAV in November 1995. The Plans to accommodate the media, especially with the buses, and the organised tours then also had to be part of the National Anti-Terrorist Plan. The next question is, who wrote these plans?
Consider the career of the retired Tasmania Police Sergeant, Michael Charles Dyson. Michael Charles Dyson joined the Tasmania Police in 1974, and the SOG in 1985. In 1990 as a senior member and the only full-time member of Tasmania Police SOG, Sgt Michael Dyson, at the time with 16 years policing experience, and 5 of those years with the SOG, was seconded to train New Zealand police officers at the New Zealand Police College near Dunedin for their inclusion in their Armed Offenders Squad (AOS) It was reported in New Zealand, that in regard to the Aramoana massacre on the 13th November 1990, “an anti terrorist unit was in the area helping to co-ordinate the scene.” Apparently Sgt Dyson was part of this anti-terrorist team.
Mr Dyson was the Assault Team Commander at Pelverata involved in the shooting death of Joe Gilowitz who was shot by Constable Michael Fogarty.
Interestingly, we learn from the Inquiry transcript, that when Michael Dyson left the SOG unit in 1995 - before the Port Arthur terrorist attack - he was posted to a special section in the Tasmania Police who were involved directly in, “counter terrorist exercises”. It was in this rather covert section, that Dyson spent his remaining time in Tasmania Police, being “involved in the development of the violent incident management plan.” (VIMPs)- “more strategic level and became involved in the overall command of violent incidents which is my passion…”
In other words, Sgt Dyson in the 2000 Royal Commission told us that he was posted to a unit directly involved in ‘ Counter Terrorist exercises’, and that he was involved in that unit’s planning aspect for ‘Violent Incident Management Plan’ the plans mentioned and used by Superintendent Fielding, Geoff Easton, and all the other players in Australia’s worst massacre. Dyson describes his move as a ‘more strategic level’, and then describes his involvement in regard to command of violent incidents as a passion. I would suspect that he means his passion would be in regard to the command and management of violent incidents rather than the victim thereof, so consider this aspect.
In regard to the Port Arthur Massacre, the most violent incident ever to occur within Australia, let alone Tasmania, the first and only time that the Plans for an ‘Anti-Terrorist’ situation were implemented, Sergeant Michael Dyson, the former SOG Assault Team Leader, the only SOG member with any siege experience, was not available to assist the SOG’s in their part of the exercise, and the required drills that had been planned by Dyson.
Dyson would have known the area around Seascape, having previously been involved with the various SOG training exercises carried out in the area, he would have been aware of all the difficulties such as topography and radio communications that would beset the SOG’s, but it appears that Dyson’s passion would not be fulfilled on that particular day or was it?
We are aware that Martin Bryant had a mate with him in Seascape Cottage, a mate called Rick. When we read of the various comments made by Martin in regard to Rick, then we become aware that they were old mates, and perhaps they had even shot together at one of the various shooting ranges in the area. We are also aware that whoever was with Martin, that person was well aware of the various tactics and drills performed by the Tasmania Police SOG’s, and had similar equipment to the SOG’s such as night viewing equipment, and laser sights. This equipment was not discovered in the charred ruins of Seascape Cottage, and so presumably must have left with ‘Rick’.
It is questionable as to why Martin Bryant changed his clothing at least three times, as his clothing on the journey to Port Arthur was different to the clothing worn by the gunman at the Historic Site, and when Martin Bryant emerged from Seascape he was dressed in black. Funnily enough the SOG’S were also dressed in black. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that Rick was also dressed in Black?
But, back to Martin Bryant in Seascape and talking with the Police Negotiator:
Jamie: Yeah, while I’m on the phone um Rick’s wondering how did the ABC actually get in touch with me.
McCarthy: Rick was Rick actually wondering that?
Now this little comment by ‘Jamie’ or Martin Bryant, if you wish, does tend to demonstrate that he had an easy friendly relationship with Rick, but now consider this little gem
Jamie: Uh well I’m well up til now and the past few twenty seconds. What I’ve actually found out man is that one of your boys is right outside North East I’d say. With an infra-red scope. I’ve got one up here that I’ve found from this person own um owns this property, he’s shining right towards me. If he doesn’t leave can you just ask him to move on, cause he’s gonna shoot he’s trying to shoot he’s gonna shoot your main man.”
Now the questions to be asked here are just who was ‘Jamie’ concerned about getting shot by the SOG marksman, as ‘Jamie’ infers that the target is someone other than himself, and thus more than likely, Rick. But it is the description of the target to the Tasmania Police Negotiator, in that the marksman was going to shoot the Tasmania Police’s main man. That man has to be Rick, and ‘Jamie’ has just told us that Rick was a main member of the Tasmania Police.
My question tonight is: “What is the possibility that the person inside Seascape Cottage with Martin Bryant, aka ‘Jamie, who ‘Jamie’ called Rick actually being a Tasmania Police SOG member by the name of Mick.
1. Police Training Video
2. EMA page 6
3. Police Training Video
4. Sth. Aust Police Journal, page 6
5. Aust. Police Journal page 213
6. Police Training Video
7. Police Training Video
8. EMA page 92
9. EMA page 120
10. EMA page 121
11. Suddenly One Sunday page 90
12. EMA page 3
13. Witness Statements, Gaye Lynd
14. Wendy’s videos
15. Mercury 31.12.96
16. EMA page 6
17. Police Training Video
18. Mercury Wendy’s email
19. Sth. Aust Police Journal page 6
20. Witness statements Const Mal Scott p.41
21. Wendy’s video tape ‘a’ 1:56:50
22. Herald Sun Sunday, ‘last contact with Martins years ago
23. Court transcript pages 160/61
24. Court transcript pages 189/90.
Fearful Andrew MacGregor with a Port Arthur Ghost pretending to be the Devil
A Related Matter
The Insider, Chopping on the block, Ellen Whinnett, The Saturday Mercury, September 11, 2004
Hobart Lawyer Steven Chopping is one of the busiest legal beagles in town, and is famous for his ability to appear in several courts at once, looking after a range of petty criminals and innocents. But he spread himself a bit too thin on Thursday and has earned the wrath of Supreme Court judge Peter Underwood. Underwood, one of the hot favourites to become Tasmania's next governor, was less than impressed when Chopping failed to turn up for the judicial summing-up in a trial of three people. It seems he was double-booked and had to be in Melbourne for a tribunal hearing. Underwood was clearly unhappy, and dark grumbles from the bench included the suggestion that Chopping be brought before the court to explain his actions. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome is. Incidentally, the jury found the three accused, including Chopping's client, not guilty.
Why PG Underwood Can Never Be Governor of Tasmania
Writes Thomas E Trustrum Tasmania's Legal Watchdog
As the title of Ellen Whinnett's column 'The Insider' may give readers the impression she is privy to some inside information regarding Tasmania's next Governor, I take this opportunity to advise your readers that one of Ms Whinnett's 'hot favourites'; ex-solicitor and former Law Society member Mr P G Underwoood (now Supreme Court judge) has no hope of ever becoming Governor - for the following reason:In July 2000, an aged pensioner (then 68) moved to Tasmania, to buy a home and spend the rest of his days here. He later gave $24,000 deposit to a crooked Devonport solicitor who attempted to keep the money (his partner was jailed for six years last year for similar offences). The pensioner complained to the Law Society of Tasmania, which claimed it would 'investigate' the matter. The Society's then executive-director, Mrs Jan Marcia Martin, later informed him that his complaint had been 'dismissed'.
Tasmania's Legal Ombudsman, Mr Judith Paxton, later exposed Mrs Martin's story as a lie - and the pensioner described Martin in a newsletter, as the 'solicitor from Hell'. The Law Society of Tasmania funded Mrs Martin to sue the pensioner for defamation; and ex-solicitor and member of the Law Society, Chief Justcie William Cox, ordered that the media and the public be BANNED from the hearings. In due course, ex-solicitor and Law Society member, Peter George Underwood (as the now Senior Puisne Judge of Tasmania's Supreme Court) was selected to 'assess the damages' in the secret defamation case in which there had been no jury - and no TRIAL!
He awarded Mrs J M Martin, the executive-director of the Law Society $40,000 damages.
As the pensioner did not have $40,000, the Law Society of Tasmania decided they would sell his house and car. They sent the corrupt Deputy-Registrar of Tasmania's Supreme Court, R J Walker, to 'auction' them. Walker pointed out to the Law Society that if he 'auctioned' the home for a low enough figure, the Society would then make the pensioner bankrupt too. Walker then 'auctioned' the $90,000 home to a mate of a mate - for $20,000. He threw in the pensioner's $6,000 car - for $300.
(While all this was going on, Mrs Jan Martin FLED Tasmania, as she could now see she had been 'set-up' by the Law Society, simply to help the Society destroy the pensioner.) The age-pensioner from the mainland, now 72, is today living 'homeless and penniless' in a backpackers hostel in Tasmania. That is why ex-solicitor and Law Society member, Peter George Underwood - now a $270,000-year Supreme Court judge - can never be Governor of Tasmania.
If he were ever selected for the job as governor, this story would be the first scandal to hit the fan - before the ink was dry.
The second and even bigger scandal would be next year, when the pensioner launches his Full Court appeal against 'Governor' Underwood's award of $40,000 damages to the Law Society of Tasmania's former executive-director, in a SECRET TRAIL (while the governor was still a judge of course).
The 'mastermind' of the entire fraud for the Law Society of Tasmania was Hobart's lawyer David John Gunson, an army reserve colonel. Chief-Justice William Cox (ex-Law Society) awarded Gunson an 'SC' for his outstanding job as Mrs Martin's counsel, in the SECRET defamation case. And the Law Society of Tasmania made him their president. Sensation! Copy of Cox's arrangement with Gunson to hold the J M Martin defamation case IN SECRET is available on request from firstname.lastname@example.org
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2004 Adelaide Institute